Sadly, they don't offer the vinyl master as 24bit download, so I have no choice if I want the best quality.

They almost do - check out the Mastered for iTunes quality tracks, Apple (a computer company) has done the same as I: - looked at the waveform quality and noticed a serious problem. They thankfully were big enough to do something about it. It's expensive to re-buy your catalogue but money far better spent than many HiFi 'improvements'.

I was hoping someone would mention this but I guess they were too busy throwing spears at the heretic who dared have a) an opinion and b) evidence..

Also, if you want to show how good your declipper is, release a standalone demo version with time limit or adding a tone every minute or so. In this way users can really try them with the audio files they have, instead of showing unreliable statistics or ratings.

Good suggestion and I was planning exactly that, it was in V3 but hasn't made it into V4 yet. It might have by now but this thread has used up quite a bit of my limited time.

V4 is still a very new piece of software and I was really just adding V4 to the Wiki and fixing some errors in the Clipping section in passing. I'd expected it to be edited and perhaps some discussion in the 'Discuss' tab on the wiki, the banning however made that impossible. I have no problem with discussion, but censorship is a growing problem in our society at all levels.If I was really ready for it to be scrutinised and tested by HA I would have put a post into the News section, but events conspired to lead to an all points attack by multiple people that I wasn't prepared for. I still will add it to News sections on other forums when I consider it stable enough, but probably not at HA.

Still, it's an interesting social experiment into tribal behaviour, quite fascinating.Greynol is still silent BTW.

If someone post the screenshots like I do in some forums and criticizing the quality of modern pop, or which specific pressing or release of the same album is the best (based on the analysis result) and so on, can your analyser actually tell which version sounds more dynamic and less clipped to someone?

The clip analysis, dynamic range and histogram give in my view a very complete picture of the mastering quality. It's possible the rating may be improved one day - very few things are as good as they'll ever be - Windows 3.0 and DOS 6.0 taught us that.

I asked for someone to find an unclipped modern pop track and you showed me a track with several thousand clips - some of them quite visible and severe. What am I missing in this picture?

I listened to the files I posted, apart from the inevitable noise and frequency response change in the cassette version, other versions sound identical to my ears, I mean I cannot ABX them after level matching. You asked me to see flat-tops, yes I can clearly see them but how about listen to them? Actually the cassette version sounds worse than other versions in my opinion due the limitation of cassette technology, obviously not "Ace" quality. It doesn't sound more dynamic, unclipped or pleasing to me.

You are confusing mastering quality with sound quality.I can have a perfectly mastered recording of a cheap transistor radio, it doesn't mean it's good sound does it?

If you are happy to listen to sound that you can plainly see to be distorted then you clearly don't need to pay for any declipping capability or even buy better mastered music. So we've just saved you some money which can only be a good thing right?

I can predict if I capture the waveform of the full version of SeeDeclip and analyze it the quality score will also greatly improved due to the flawed algorithm of your analyzer. So it also lies about the effectiveness or your declipper, as well as a cassette deck, a phase shifter or declippers from other competitors. Is it honest?

The analyser didn't look flawed to me. It detected the flat-tops you had perfectly and even showed you where they were.It didn't bother looking at the lower level waveform, I suggest you update the program if you want to stay up to date.

"the standard" was referring to your proposal: A standard based on 32bit floats so there's no magnitude limit.I assume you'd already thought about the other questions - I'm not sure why I'd know the answers, it wasn't my proposal.

I wasn't going to mandate anything, because I don't know anybody who could. The usage of the floating point format was meant to be:

I used (past tense means uninstalled) it not because I am a potential customer, just because I saw the disputes in this thread and wanted to verify them. Now you replied in a way like you gave me something for free and I really got a benefit. I felt disgusted about you.

The waveform, as you and I mentioned, will be the same even if I don't use your software. But the rating, and statistics of clipped samples can be dramatically changed by simple manipulations. Be careful about your wordings, for example, Adobe Audition says "possible clipped samples" in its statistics. Without comparing with the original source it is impossible to tell if samples are "absolutely" clipped.

There are also stuffs like RMS, LU, crest factor and so on in other software, they are based on some algorithms and just displayed them as information. These are factual stuffs and how people think about them are based on their personal opinion. The controversial point about your software is you actually have a rating like Ace, good, fair and bad. As for the cassette example sure someone can use some hi-end type IV cassettes or even a professional Open reel tape machine to make a dub and make an audible difference, but my point is not about that. The point is I cannot find any improvement in terms of clipping, even if it does not have other audible analog distortions. So your argument is irrelevant.

Also, how do you define "mastering quality"? Is it solely based on clipping, loudness or dynamics? Ask an audiophile, a professional mastering engineer, an indie artist or anyone who has interest in this issue, and see how different their answers are. So this "mastering quality" is also based on what you think, or what your algorithm interprets isn't it? An even worse thing is the rating can be very different even if they are actually indistinguishable after level-matching. Do you see the point?

Your arguing style can give you a small verbal victory sometimes, with the price of losing a lot of your creditability and potential customers. Better hire someone to do the social engineering stuff on forums and spend more time on programming.

That means you gave him a chance to derail the discussion by talking about floating point, and he used this chance. Subsequently It also provided a possibility to twist some of your opinions about this issue to justify some of his claim.

The DR database entry i mentioned before is gone for good.I find this is software from a waveformophile for other waveformophiles and its use is much more limited as it tries to suggest. Spectralophiles may be happy to extend their senses with it

Last Edit: 2017-01-15 17:36:17 by Wombat

Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!